Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

[Enoch111]

But I am right (that other interpretations do not constitute a denial of Scripture).

You have dug yourself so deeply into a black hole that you cannot see anything clearly any more. Keep on digging yourself deeper.

 

[John Caldwell]

You have dug yourself so deeply into a black hole that you cannot see anything clearly any more. Keep on digging yourself deeper.

Have you noticed that you have not even provided one verse I have denied?

You and @David Taylor keep making the claim (I assume simply trying to slander by repeating the lie), but neither of you can provide one verse I reject.

What I reject is your interpretation of Scripture and what you carry into your interpretation.

There is no "hole to dig". This is a Christian forum, not a Penal Substitution Theory forum. Most Christians do not affirm Penal Substitution Theory, do I suspect there is no hole being dug by my asking folks who hold the view how they actually got there from Scripture.

 

[John Caldwell]

I will ask again (for about the 5th time) and not to start an argument but for edification:

@Enoch111 and @David Taylor have claimed that those who reject Penal Substitution Theory are rejecting Scripture. Thus far not one rejected passage has been provided as evidence or edification. As most Christians do not affirm the Theory this is an important charge that needs to be addressed.

What verse do we (those who reject Penal Substitution Theory) reject (rather than arrive at a different interpretation)?

The reason this is important is IF what is rejected are not actual verses but your interpretation THEN you may have elevated your theories above Scripture and yourself above God (which is a serious issue).

 

[CharismaticLady]

You have dug yourself so deeply into a black hole that you cannot see anything clearly any more. Keep on digging yourself deeper.

You just did the same thing. Shame on your attitude too.

Just stick to calmly discussing scripture, even if you have to repeat it (@David Taylor) for the benefit of others just reading threads. After all, no one is denying the bottom line that Jesus died for our sins. The rest is semantics. Personally, I agree with everybody, because everyone is just bringing out different elements to the same truth. And there is more truth than any of us know on what Jesus accomplished.

cc: @John Caldwell

 

[CharismaticLady]

I will ask again (for about the 5th time) and not to start an argument but for edification:

@Enoch111 and @David Taylor have claimed that those who reject Penal Substitution Theory are rejecting Scripture. Thus far not one rejected passage has been provided as evidence or edification. As most Christians do not affirm the Theory this is an important charge that needs to be addressed.

What verse do we (those who reject Penal Substitution Theory) reject (rather than arrive at a different interpretation)?

The reason this is important is IF what is rejected are not actual verses but your interpretation THEN you may have elevated your theories above Scripture and yourself above God (which is a serious issue).

Don't make me have to come over there, John!!!

 

[John Caldwell]

Don't make me have to come over there, John!!!

I'll buy lunch. I'm spending the day in Charleston and it's a nice place to be.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You are assuming that 1 John 1:9 is for continuing in sin. I grew up thinking that, but now I believe it is for becoming a Christian. 'Repent and be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit.' It is to become born again of the Spirit so you may partake of the divine nature. 2 Peter 1; 1 John 3:5-9

That is why if you willfully sin after being sanctified it is such a big deal, because you have quenched the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the "perhaps" is really up to God to grant or reject. What I am saying is not from a Calvinist. I'm not even close, so the "perhaps" has nothing to do with being the elect or not. As Jesus said, "they have a reputation for being alive, but they are dead."

Hebrews 10:29-31 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

In context, 1 John 1:7-10 is being written to instruct those who are already Christians. No alien sinner** was ever told to confess only and your sins will be forgiven. But instead, the alien sinner must believe John 8:24) repent (Luke 13:3), confess (Matthew 10:32-33 be baptized (Mark 16:16 live faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10). Part of this living faithful unto death for the Christian is the continued walking in the light and confessing of sins 1 John 1:7-10.

**What I mean by alien sinner who a person who has never been in a saved NT covenant relationship with God but has always been alienated from God, always lost.

 

[John Caldwell]

What I believe we can gain in these discussions is a knowledge of how people come to different views while affirming the same passages.

I think we all know much of each other's view (at least the "classic view" of Atonement, Penal Substitution Theory, and Substitution Theory are strongly represented in contemporary Christianity). There is also Ontological Substitution, I think the Catholic view may have some distinctions, and the Mormon understanding (which I do not know).

The only thing there is to discuss is how we get from point A (Scripture) to point B (our view). We can't just rest on the assumption ours is the only possible view therefore it needs no explanation and all others reject Scripture.

The edification is in the explanation. Perhaps it will be forthcoming (but given the title of the OP, perhaps not here).

 

[CharismaticLady]

In context, 1 John 1:7-10 is being written to instruct those who are already Christians. No alien sinner** was ever told to confess only and your sins will be forgiven. But instead, the alien sinner must believe John 8:24) repent (Luke 13:3), confess (Matthew 10:32-33 be baptized (Mark 16:16 live faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10). Part of this living faithful unto death for the Christian is the continued walking in the light and confessing of sins 1 John 1:7-10.

**What I mean by alien sinner who a person who has never been in a saved NT covenant relationship with God but has always been alienated from God, always lost.

1 John 1:6, 8 and 10 are not "already Christians," at least not born again Christians, and we MUST be born again of the Spirit. And if they are not born again, they may never be, and guess what? They will not be headed to heaven. Did you even read 1 John 3:5-9? That describes a true born again Christian.

 

[reformed1689]

As most Christians do not affirm the Theory this is an important charge that needs to be addressed.

How can you even say this? I mean really?

What verse do we (those who reject Penal Substitution Theory) reject (rather than arrive at a different interpretation)?

If you arrive at a different interpretation of John 1 and say that Jesus is not God do you think that would be rejecting Scripture? (Because there are people who say that).

The reason this is important is IF what is rejected are not actual verses but your interpretation THEN you may have elevated your theories above Scripture and yourself above God (which is a serious issue).

That actually is a false statement in many ways.

 

[reformed1689]

You and @David Taylor keep making the claim (I assume simply trying to slander by repeating the lie), but neither of you can provide one verse I reject.

Saying you don't reject a verse doesn't mean anything. If someone says John 1 does not say Jesus is God is that rejecting Scripture? ABSOLUTELY

 

[reformed1689]

Part of this is they denounce the majority of Christianity.

Based on?

 

[reformed1689]

I have told you that I agree with the "classic view" of the Atonement to include the reason Christ had to die.

The plainly say it, why did Christ have to die?

When you say "Scripture" by your own admission what you mean is your ideas, theories, and presuppositions.

What on earth are you talking about?

That is why I told you any discussion is fruitless. I do not believe in progressive special revelation. I hold to the position all doctrine must be tested by Scripture, not Reformed Theology.

I hold that same position. So this is a false argument.

 

[John Caldwell]

How can you even say this? I mean really?

You are just arguing to argue now, David.

I can say that Penal Substitution Theory is not affirmed by most Christians because it is true.

The most popular view for the 1st millenia of Christian was the Ransom view. The most popular after the 13th century was a mixture of Abelard's Moral Influence Theory and Ransom Theory (within those who held the Classic View) and Aquinas (within those who held the Latin View). Penal Substitution Theory was (and is) the most popular among Protestants BUT "Christian" does not mean "Protestant".

 

[marks]

Except I do not think "wrath" can be cast anywhere. I believe all judgment has been given to the Son.

Yeah, I see how that was awkward wording. What I was intending to say was to define "wrath" as "being cast into the lake of fire", as Paul wrote that Jesus saves us from the wrath to come.

Much love!

 

[reformed1689]

I can say that Penal Substitution Theory is not affirmed by most Christians because it is true.

Prove it.

Penal Substitution Theory was (and is) the most popular among Protestants BUT "Christian" does not mean "Protestant".

So you believe RCC is Christian? Mormon is Christian? Etc... If so we might as well end talks now. It would tell me all I need to know about you and your crazy theories. You are so confused and you leave the door wide.

 

[John Caldwell]

Yeah, I see how that was awkward wording. What I was intending to say was to define "wrath" as "being cast into the lake of fire", as Paul wrote that Jesus saves us from the wrath to come.

Much love!

Thanks for your clarification.

IMHO what changes is not the wrath but those being saved. We are made righteous in Christ (there is no condemnation in Christ - no wrath to appease). We are rescued from the wrath.

 

[marks]

It is debatable whether Origen thought that as well. The reason it is questioned is that not all ransom theories believe God paid a price to any entity.

The idea is that our redemption was at great cost. Peter puts it this way - we were purchased by the precious blood of Christ (Paul says we were bought with a price). This does not mean God paid someone for us, but that we were redeemed and set free from the bondage of sin and death.

Penal Substitution Theory makes the same mistake that medieval Ransom Theory made. They want God to have paid someone. One side says God paid Satan. The other that God paid the demands of retributive justice. Both are equally wrong.

Or to say, the one view has God paying Satan, the other view has God paying Himself. And your view is that God "provided a way at great personal cost".

?

Much love!

I really do appreciate your following this through with me. This to me is Forum at it's best!

 

[reformed1689]

there is no condemnation in Christ - no wrath to appease

Because it was already appeased.

 

[John Caldwell]

Prove it.


So you believe RCC is Christian? Mormon is Christian? Etc... If so we might as well end talks now. It would tell me all I need to know about you and your crazy theories. You are so confused and you leave the door wide.

I do not believe religion is Christian.

You hold to very false teachings but I believe despite your false beliefs you are saved. Some could believe all the right things and not be saved.

I believe all who believe the gospel are saved.

And yes, I have friends who are Catholic yet I believe they are Christians.